Is the Blood policy simply a means of grabbing $ from the wills of faithful ones who prove themselves...

mP

Since it all about money, stands to reason they want people to die so they can get something from their wills right ?

most people don't die from causes related to not taking blood. I would hazard a guess that most of the ones who do die from something that a blood transfusion could have helped don't have much money (cancer deaths - treatment eats up the assets) or massive trauma (primarily young people who don't have much money to start with)

jgnat

Heck, I don't think the WTS is that diabolical. I swear they hang on to their policies to:

Save face. After all, they are representing Jehovah here.
Have an outlet for martyrdom.
Prove themeselves different than "Christendom" and the world.
It may be a self-perpetuating myth. That is, the current leadership are convinced that their stance is right.

If it hadn't been blood, it might have been the Sabbath, as the Seventh-Day Adventists cling to. Or pork. It might have been pork.

Too bad it hadn't been the Sabbath or pork. There'd be fewer deaths.

sir82

The vast majority of JWs who die, die from causes other than "lack of blood transfusion".

You seem to be grasping at straws.

The retention of the blood policy is due to (A) fear of lawsuits if it were removed, and (B) lack of creativity / deep thinking at the highest levels.

wasblind

Deep thinkin', and JW's should not be used within' the same post sir82

It's good you included the word lack

MrFreeze

Nah, they had the blood policy well before they started pushing people to put the WT in their will.

simon17

don't be ridiculous.

Ding

I think it just a case of reading into the text something that isn't there (something the WTS has done since its inception), followed by a desire to be consistent with earlier dogma, particularly considering how difficult it would be to explain doing away with the policy when so many JWs have given their lives obeying it.